Klarinet Archive - Posting 000097.txt from 1998/12

From: Tony@-----.uk (Tony Pay)
Subj: Re: [kl] Russianoff Method Books and students
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 10:19:12 -0500

On Thu, 3 Dec 1998 09:25:52 EST, LeliaLoban@-----.com said:

[snip]

> BTW, I've seen this type of obsessional scribbling many times before
> in used music and have grown to loathe it. How can anybody learn
> anything from such a confusing mess? It's annoying enough in a method
> book, but when I see "real music" mutilated that way, it makes me
> wonder if the teacher subconsciously considered his or her
> hieroglyphics more important than Mozart or Brahms. Arthur Eisler, my
> piano teacher, kept his markings small and neat, and wrote only
> sparingly, in the margins or between the lines, so that he didn't ruin
> my music books. He had me bring a spiral notebook to lessons. He
> made his more extensive comments and all of my assignments in legible
> writing, in my notebooks. I've kept those notebooks, and still
> occasionally consult them. I've saved my old music, too, because he
> helped me to keep it in usable condition. That was thoughtful of him,
> and all these years later I still appreciate it.

I couldn't agree more with this.

But consider further -- we already have to cope with paid scribblers,
who are actually employed by publishers to change what the composer
wrote. Their scribblings have the added disadvantage that they are
indistinguishable from the composer's instructions, and make it
impossible for us to solve or even recognise the problems that contact
with the original score would have posed.

Unless, that is, we make a great effort to obtain the original.

For example, there is a particular edition of the Mozart concerto that
finally, in exasperation, I once took off the stand of a student in
Italy and tore up in front of the class. (I gave him another part
afterwards, you'll be pleased to hear, and bought him a beer -- or an
icecream, I can't remember.)

This (Ricordi) edition has printed on the front of it: "It is obligatory
for anyone giving a performance from this edition to print on the
programme of the concert not only the name of the composer but also the
name of the editor, Alamiro Giampieri." What a ****[***].

We're not free of it in modern editions either, though nobody has
quite this sort of chutzpah nowadays. (Do they?) Consider Pamela
Weston's urtext edition of the Weber Grand Duo, which is a striking
example of good intentions thwarted by circumstances.

Pamela gives us Weber's original of both piano and clarinet in the piano
part, but then renders the copy unusable by printing her version
underneath it. (The upshot is that the pianist would have to turn the
page every few seconds.) But then, the clarinet part, where it would be
good to have Weber's original that we then (perhaps) modify for
ourselves, is just her edited part. Thus, to go against her at any
point (which you might well want to do, in order to return to Weber's
original) you would have to scratch out, or white out, her markings.

The same problem occurs in the Breitkopf (Sabine Meyer et al) edition.
They've abandoned all the 'traditional' markings, but can't quite bring
themselves to leave the original Andre edition (supported by the
Winterthur manuscript for a couple of hundred bars) alone, because it
would look too boring. So we have Sabine's crescendi and dynamics,
admittedly in brackets, but very obtrusive for all that, *not to read*.
And in quite a few places, you would want to say that the choice of
dynamics is not at all justified by the orchestral context.

I could go on.

You were indeed fortunate with your teacher, Lelia. May the rest of us
be more fortunate with editions in the future.

Tony
--
_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd Tony@-----.uk
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE
tel/fax 01865 553339

"...his playing soars so freely, one is aware of witchcraft without
noticing a single magical gesture."
(C.D.F.Schubart on the harpsichord playing of C.P.E.Bach)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------